text:
Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson, Sheriff Michael Bouchard, and Oakland Schools Superintendent Dr. Vickie Markavitch are teaming up to ensure that teachers and staff at schools throughout the county have the training they need should they ever encounter an active shooter. Experts from Oakland County Homeland Security Division and the Sheriff's Office will conduct five training sessions for school personnel on how to react in an active shooter situation in January and February.
"Dec. 14, 2012 is emblazoned on our memories forever," Patterson said. "Many died in the Newtown, Conn. tragedy. But many others survived because teachers knew just what to do with a shooter in the building."
In the days following the Newtown, Conn. mass shooting, Homeland Security Division Manager Ted Quisenberry contacted Oakland Schools about collaborating on large-scale active-shooter training sessions for school personnel in Oakland County.
"We are fortunate to have the resources of Oakland County Homeland Security available to the local schools," Dr. Markavitch said. "The ongoing collaborations between Oakland Schools, local school districts and Oakland County government make it possible for us to work together to keep our schools and our communities safe."
Oakland County already had an active shooter training program in place. Earlier in 2012, Homeland Security Division and the Sheriff's Office trained hundreds of county employees as well as hospitals and long-term care facilities on what to do in an active shooter situation.
Sheriff Bouchard, who also has had numerous inquiries of late, gave a school an active shooter presentation this past Monday. He said, "Active shooter situations are unpredictable and evolve quickly, which requires people on the scene to be prepared both mentally and physically while waiting for law enforcement to arrive."
Training will take place on the following dates:
Thursday, Jan. 24
One session: 1-3:30 p.m.
Oakland County Executive Office Building Conference Center
2100 Pontiac Lake Road, Waterford
(Limit 85 attendees)
Monday, Feb. 11
Two sessions: 9-11:30 a.m. and 1-3:30 p.m.
Oakland Schools Building
2111 Pontiac Lake Road, Waterford
(Limit 60 attendees each session)
Tuesday, Feb. 19
Two sessions: 9-11:30 a.m. and 1-3:30 p.m.
Oakland Schools Building
2111 Pontiac Lake Road, Waterford
(Limit 120 attendees each session)
Teachers and school staff who want to attend a training session should register with Oakland Schools Event Management one day prior to the training session by calling 248-209-2500 or via email at email@example.com. Oakland County Homeland Security Division recommends that all participants complete a 45-minute online training program prior to the workshop. Event Management will send the link to registered participants.


text:
I was hoping to do all of this within the category.php template, with help from the functions.php if needed.
If my setup is:
Parent 1
--Child 1
--Child 2
Parent 2
--Child 3
--Child 4
Parent 3
--Child 5
--Child 6
...and so on I would like to be able to do this:
If I was viewing Parent 1 (or 2/3), it would show me Child 1 and Child 2. However, I don't want to use wp_list_categories because for each Child, I would like to show a thumbnail (from a plugin function), the Child's name, and the category description.
If I was viewing Child 1 (or 2/3/4/5/6), it would show me the latest 2 posts using the standard Loop.
I would like avoiding having to do this using hard-coded contitionals with the specific names of the categories, in case new ones will be added in the future.
Any assistance will be appreciated. Thank you!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Merlin's weekly podcast with Dan Benjamin. We talk about creativity, independence, and making things you love.
Merlin's weekly podcast with Dan Benjamin. We talk about creativity, independence, and making things you love.
"What's 43 Folders?"
43Folders.com is Merlin Mann's website about finding the time and attention to do your best creative work.
iCommit: PHP app for doing GTD
Merlin Mann | Jun 27 2006
Getting Things Done [iCommit.eu] Rainer Bernhardt has put together a nifty little PHP app for doing GTD via a web interface. It lets you wrangle projects, next actions, calendar items, ad hoc lists, and all the other tactical building blocks of GTD all via your (non-IE) browser. The interface is pretty good and typical workflow is quite easy to navigate through. It has nice touches like attachments, per-item effort estimates, printable views, plus Rainer says he may soon offer email integration which would "eliminate use of a separate e-mail app" for workflow-related planning. Wow. Although I haven't spent a great deal of time with it, I'm very intrigued by the baked-in "weekly review" functionality, which walks you through most of what you need to look over each week from one interface. Since review gets short shrift from the many folks (like me) who use GTD primarily for task management, I think an addition like this is a terrific idea. iCommit is, like so many of my favorite apps these days, a non-commercial, one-man operation, so there are a few rough edges, no documentation (yet! coming soon, says Rainer), and it is very much "first come, first served" in terms of seats he can handle on his personal server setup (I hope we don't cream Rainer's productivity boxen with this). But iCommit is worth a look if you've been craving a cross-platform, low-paper implementation of Getting Things Done. Screengrabs below the cut -- I feel like Michael Arrington! Home pageLogged-in with a few test items. Project viewNew next actionNote "Effort" estimate. POSTED IN:
I'd be nervous about trusting...Submitted by Paul (not verified) on June 27, 2006 - 7:58am.
I'd be nervous about trusting such critical data to anyone else to mainatin. I'll stick with GTD-PHP for now. http://gtd-php.sourceforge.net/ » POSTED IN:
EXPLORE 43Folders | THE GOOD STUFF |


text: Calif. Health Exchange Enrolls Fraction of Target Wednesday, November 13, 2013 | Sacramento, CA Update: 5:47 p.m. At a press conference Wednesday, Covered California said the latest data show almost 60,000 picked a plan in the health marketplace as of Nov. 12, 2013. Executive Director Peter Lee says the latest numbers show the momentum of the state-run exchange. "In the period between November 1st and November 12, an additional 29,000 Californians have selected a health plan. What's that mean? More than 2,000 a day are selecting health plans," says Lee. Original story: 1:34 p.m. (AP) California's new health insurance exchange tentatively enrolled 35,000 people during its first month of operation, a fraction of the eventual goal in the state with the nation's largest uninsured population. A report released Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also showed that California determined about 80,000 lower-income people would be eligible for expanded Medicaid coverage under the national health care overhaul. California counts nearly 7 million people without health coverage. An estimated 2.3 million are expected to enroll in a health plan through the new agency, known as Covered California, by 2017. Earlier this month Covered California said about 2.5 million people had visited its website. See the Covered California press release. Follow us for more stories like this CapRadio provides a trusted source of news because of you. As a nonprofit organization, donations from people like you sustain the journalism that allows us to discover stories that are important to our audience. If you believe in what we do and support our mission, please donate today. Donate Today


text:
Displaying items by tag: unlicenced
#MCIB - The families of two fishermen found dead at sea off the Skerries last April may never uncover the circumstances that led to their demise. But the official report into the incident indicated that the absence of lifejackets was a significant contributing factor.
Ronan Browne (26) and David Gilsenan (41) were reported missing on the evening of 1 April after failing to return from a trip tending to lobster pots.
Their vessel, Lady Linda, was found the following morning upturned in an oil slick off Clogherhead with no sign of the crew.
It wasn't until a week later that their bodies were discovered caught in the vessel's fishing gear some five miles east of Clogherhead, as previously reported on Afloat.ie.
Post-mortem results found that both men died from drowning, with Gilsenan also showing signs of hypothermia.
With no eyewitnesses to the incident, the report by the Marine Casualty Investigation Board (MCIB) indicated a number of possible causes from eqiupment malfunction or shifting of lobster pots on deck, to the wave height and weather conditions on the day, which were reportedly deteriorating when the boat left port.
It also said that Browne and Gilsenan "were lifelong friends, both men were experienced and qualified marine engineers in the fishing vessel industry. Both men were experienced in boat handling and fishing and had worked together on many occasions."
But the report emphasised the lack of personal flotation devices (PFDs) on board, and noted that emergency equipment was stored under the deck and not easily accessible.
The MCIB's recommendations include a review of the code of practice for fishing vessels under 15m to establish "revised stability critera" and ensuring that all boats are fitted with automatic radio beacons that deploy upon capsize.
In a separate incident, lack of proper maintenance led to an unlicenced boat taking on water off Co Kerry last August.
The Claire Buoyant was carrying one crew, five passengers and 21 sheep from Beginish Island to Ventry when the vessel began to lose stability.
Skipper Eoin Firtear - who the MCIB described as having "limited sea-going experience" - and his five passengers were rescued by passenger ferry. All sheep were jettisoned overboard, with 18 eventually recovered.
The report reminded that the carriage of livestock should only be undertaken in appropriately certified vessels.
- Marine Casualty Investigation Board
- report
- Lady Linda
- Clogherhead
- Ronan Browne
- David Gilsenan
- lobster pots
- Fishing
- drowning
- hypothermia
- missing
- malfunction
- wave height
- Weather
- lifejackets
- Personal Flotation Devices
- PFDs
- Code of Practice
- stability
- Radio
- beacon
- maintenance
- unlicenced
- Co Kerry
- Claire Buoyant
- Sheep
- Passengers
- Beginish Island
- Ventry
- Eoin Firtear
- Skipper
- Rescue
- Livestock


text:
From the crypt of 2006:
From Quality Circles to Mobius* Rings: A Consultants Journey
*Mobius ring: a devilishly twisted device that can tangle your mind and lead you to peculiar places."
Legal rackets abound in a free society: government work is near the top of the list, but the prize undoubtedly belongs to Consultants. The old joke about consultants "borrowing your watch, telling you the time, and pocketing the watch" has been around so long there's probably a whole new generation that hasn't heard it yet. You can find whole websites dedicated to consultant jokes. So do we really need another rant on consultants? Sure. Because it's easy to forget that we really can solve problems on our own.
To be fair, consultancy arose because corporate America has a bias toward the sexy, glitzy, and fun – mergers and acquisitions, new product launches, racecar sponsorships. The stuff of which dreams are made and bonuses earned. The risk/reward profile for tackling boring, mundane and hard business issues is not really what ambitious fast trackers are looking for. No, the intractable business problems are often relegated to the super heroes of business: the consultants.
If you have ever worked anywhere, you've most likely been witness to the consultants' alchemy. Their arrival is greeted with the same dread as a flu epidemic. If you weren't sick when they arrived, you would be infected shortly. If you were already sick when they showed up, odds are you'd have pneumonia before they left – if you survived at all.
Fredrick Winslow Taylor was the father of modern scientific management, bringing efficiency studies to the factory floor in the early 20th century. But by the end of the millennium, using the word "consultant" and "efficiency" in the same sentence guaranteed a good laugh. Many efficiency efforts involved little more than nailing Jell-O to the wall. And yet, consultants' promise of a silver bullet proved seductive as businesses faced new and increased pressures. Automobile manufacturers were on the leading edge of consulting trends for obvious reasons: consultants targeted them because they were large and their fees lucrative, their cyclical nature ensured financial woes on a consistent basis, and, perhaps most importantly, they had demonstrated a willingness to throw big dollars at their problems. It was a perfect storm.
With their consultants' assistance, the Autos have entertained every sexy management trend for the last 40 years. Vertical and horizontal integration, M&A frenzy, divestiture frenzy, quality circles, continuous improvement, culture change, reengineering, best practices, downsizing, right sizing, reinvention, 360 degree feedback, executive coaching: all beta-tested at the autos. As GM goes, so goes the nation, and every consulting company worth their hourly rate knew it.
Consulting engagements that began at one of the Big 3 soon rippled from the executive suite through the administration offices and onto the factory floor. From there, the management trend du jour sluiced off the assembly lines and was sold throughout America as an ersatz symbol of American ingenuity -- much like the flawed cars themselves. Consultants multiplied like, well, like consultants; and CEO's of companies that didn't even have a factory floor signed on for the consultants intervention in search of the "cure" – often before they had been infected. Better safe than sorry, and besides, who wanted to be the only the CEO in town not chasing "quality"? And who wanted to admit they weren't achieving "quality" results after such an investment? Consultants' fame spread like wild fire. Companies from auto parts suppliers to financial services caught the "continuous improvement" fever. Come to think of it, it was like a flu epidemic.
This tsunami began to gather real force following the 1970's Oil Embargo. By the end of that decade consumers balked at buying the gas-guzzlers being churned out domestically, and the bloated Autos were in serious trouble. Customers turned to Japanese imports that got much better mileage, cost considerably less and -- could this be true? -- were built better. Like deer caught in the headlights (so to speak), the Auto execs turned to their consultants with the lament "The Japanese are eating our lunch! What are we to do?"
Happy to comply, consultants developed a solution by doing what the Autos might have done for themselves: they looked to see how the Japanese were accomplishing these inhuman feats. What they discovered was W. Edwards Deming -- an American mathematician and physicist from Sioux City Iowa who had been working with the Japanese automotive industry for decades. The B-school boys literally consumed his theories, books, philosophy and methodologies in order to regurgitate them to their clients in Detroit.
For the next two decades consultants trotted out every aspect of Japanese manufacturing culture and force-fed it to the Autos and nearly every other segment of American business. Deming's philosophy was straightforward: Improve quality and you'll decrease cost while simultaneously improving productivity and market share. (Hello! Management 101. Ever heard of it?) What Deming might have envisioned as a Zen and the Art of Corporate Maintenance devolved into the most protracted exercise in group navel gazing since the baby boomers first discovered theirs.
Only consultants charging by the hour could transmogrify Deming's practical application of managerial basics into a perpetual feedback loop – and not in a good way. Consultants marketed the approach under various names: Total Quality Management, Reengineering, Re-inventing, Right-sizing, Quality Circles, Six Sigma, Continuous Improvement Cycles. They all had three things in common. First, they required employee "input", and hence unbelievable hours of employee time doing little more than free-associating in large groups. Secondly, they would all require layoffs (when management realized that employees could spend hundreds of hours off the job playing consulting games with no apparent impact on the day-to-day business operations, layoffs were inevitable). And third, all would require the launching of a "corporate change effort" in order to align the remaining employees with the new "vision and values" statement drafted by the employees who have now been laid off. The first and second items required copious amounts of consultants' time and attention. You were pretty much on your own for the layoffs – except for the lawyers, but that's another story.
In spite of these efforts, things did improve for the Autos. The embargo ended, oil prices stabilized, the Big 3 laid off thousands of workers, closed dozens of plants, and outsourced the majority of components. This brilliant stroke of reverse vertical integration allowed them to get tough with their suppliers and demand that they provide higher quality components at lower costs. Meanwhile, Chrysler received a massive government bailout to stay afloat, while American Motors went gently into that goodnight. In short, the survivors downsized, accepted corporate welfare and pushed one of the industry's inherent problems off onto their newly independent suppliers. How many McKenzie consultants does it take to come up with that strategy?
And since this strategy was working so well, consultants marketed the same cookie cutter approach to the non-automotive corporate world with the pitch "The competition is eating your lunch! (or will be shortly)." They could even help you figure out who your competition was for a few additional billable hours (utilities and other entrenched monopolies, like the post office, needed a little help with this step). There were so many employees, in so many businesses, assembled to provide crucial "input" to "problems" that companies had to construct new conference rooms to handle the demand for meeting places during work hours. And what "input" they provided! Facilitated by dozens of consultants they generated reams of post-its and paper chart pack notes, chucked full of good ideas on how to create "quality" and run the business better. (Excuse me? Isn't that what the Board of Directors pays management to do? Or is that too"Old Paradigm"?)
Well, it was a great time. There were team building exercises (onsite and off-site), contests and prizes and dinners to celebrate – just about anything. Marketing departments marketed the newfound "Quality", or, absent that, the "image of quality." Applications for "Quality Awards" were applied for, organizations were flattened, supervisors were replaced with self-directed teams, and cultures changed (for the better, one supposes). But, oddly, Americans continued to buy Japanese, German, Swedish and Korean cars. Clearly we missed something.
That something turned out to be: metrics! That's right; Deming was a mathematician after all. He used statistical process analysis. Let's measure how we're doing so we'll know whether any of this crap is working. Enter the nightmare of best practices and business metrics consulting. Now, instead of employees spending their normal business hours in conference rooms on site, they had to spend more time (and money) flying cross-country to meet with and view other companies' best practices. If they were lucky, they got to visit a Baldrige Quality Award winner. Hard to say really if performance improved, but the quality of the applications for those prestigious awards was six sigma. Every company CEO craved one of those awards. Then other companies will visit you. That will be prestigious. that will prove that "Quality is Job 1." And winning a prize became a popular bonus "benchmark". You don't even want to know how much time winning one of those rewards consumed. Trust me. You don't. Just remember: you get what you incent.
The Autos were racking up Quality Awards left and right, as were their suppliers. And while Americans seemed to love the unique SUV's and trucks made by the Big 3, their passenger car market continued a long sharp slide as customers continued to prefer foreign models.
This niggling little problem prompted the consultants to advise their clients that yes, while Quality is important, let's not forget that Customer Satisfaction is job 1!
This launched the round of consultant engagements that required inordinate amounts of employee time (facilitated by consultants of course) designing and conducting customer focus groups and surveys: to find out what customers really wanted. There's no point making something that they don't want, is there? Apparently it still hadn't occurred to anyone that what customers wanted was something that looked like a foreign car, performed like a foreign car, and cost approximately what a foreign car did. And oh yeah, the customer didn't really care about your labor union issues (at least not outside of Detroit). Deal with it.
Since "Customer Satisfaction" was such a gratifying answer (for consultants anyway) to the lament that "competition is eating our lunch", consultants decided to run it around the block again. When there were no more real customers willing to participate in the annoying customer focus group/survey game, the consultants helped identify internal "customers". This allowed staff departments that had no direct contact with real customers to play the "customer survey" game. They identified or invented "customers" within their own company. Brilliant. Now they had someone they could "focus group" with. It sure beats working. And when they were done, the consultants would come back to interpret the results and help them establish matrices to see how well they were "continually improving" their "customer service" to their "internal customers." The fact is, all this internal pandering left the end-product and customer in the lurch. But by now everybody's performance evaluation depended on what their "customers" thought of their "services." So more time spent getting feedback from more captive "customers." Can you believe this insanity was actually condoned by upper-management? Are you starting to understand the plight of the autos a bit better?
Unfortunately, no matter how "delighted" employees were becoming with each other, passenger car sales continued to lag. But good news: light trucks and SUV's (and bonuses!) continued to produce decent results. This led consultants to conclude that the real problem was "The wrong customer is eating our lunch". "Wrong" customer was defined as those who required disproportionate effort in relation to the revenue they generated. Also included in this group of undesirables were those that just stubbornly refused to be "delighted" no matter what you did for them. Let's focus on the customers who like our trucks and SUVs. All that development time and production cost for customers that are only going to buy an Oldsmobile every 7 years? Get rid of them, and you'll get your lunch back. You can't unload these parasites soon enough (the "wrong" customers that is, not the consultants.)
And then came the dotcom boom. The Autos couldn't really figure out how they fit into this new business model. All they knew was "The new economy is eating our lunch!" This level of threat required the services of consultants. Always up for a challenge, the B-school guys convened to assess the situation and immediately advised the auto execs they did not possess the type of culture required to operate effectively in the New Economy. It looked like they were going to have to shed their old brick and mortar mentality, and if they didn't want to lose everything to the new economy businesses, they would need to realign and launch a corporate change effort immediately.
Unfortunately, it looked like this corporate change effort would trip over the other corporate change effort still underway to prepare the Autos to deal with the fact that "The global economy is eating our lunch." Fortunately, the two groups of consultants were persuaded to work together, to facilitate the emergence of a corporate culture to handle both brave new worlds. And they'd be willing to stick around to integrate all of it into the newly restructured financial model that the wizards of Wall Street were efforting up in Finance.
Going global is going to require a lot more leveraging. You're going to need a fair amount of financial engineering to get all that debt off the balance sheet, and we might look at acquiring some finance companies to generate a little better cash flow. You're not really selling many cars at a profit, you know. And you might want to initiate a separate change management effort for the Accounting and Finance group: they're about to embark on the roller coaster ride of their life.
As fate would have it, the dotcom bust arrived before the Autos attempted to make cars online. Fortuitously for the consultants, the spectacular meltdown of Enron, Worldcom, et al, provided a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in the form of the Sarbanes-Oxley Bill: the closest thing to guaranteed lifetime employment since the IRS was conceived. And an additional premium: the yet untapped opportunity to provide businesses with training in business ethics. Please, no snarky comments about using the words "consultants" and "ethics" in the same sentence. Corporate governance was an unplumbed void, and someone had to fill it. And since the current corporate culture obviously condoned lying, cheating and stealing, you really need to get a corporate culture change effort underway.
And here we are – nearly a decade into the 21st century. How are things going? Unfortunately many of the auto's suppliers are in chapter 11, but they have won an impressive array of quality awards over the years. The Big 3 themselves, while not DOA, are on life support. Years of profit reliance on leasing and financial services arms, instead of the product itself, has left them scrambling to undo 10 years worth of financial engineering. As these cash cows get spun off, the old balance sheets don't look so good. (Oh yeah, and how's that pension plan milking scheme working out for you guys?) The autos are still making gas-guzzlers, still marketing the image of quality, still right sizing, still trying to figure out how to make customers number one (except for the ones they don't wish to be burdened with at all) and still trying to figure out who's eating their lunch. Sadly, that's not even the right question any more. No one's eating their lunch. Everybody's been so busy with the menu, they forgot to make lunch. They're left with just a few stale snacks.
But if you're an Auto exec, don't despair. The solution is as close as your Blackberry or cell phone. Check your contact list for "super heroes". Yes! Here they come to save the day! There they are, the reengineering gurus, organization gurus, quality gurus, customer service gurus and financial gurus. What's that? The budget is pretty tight and you're not sure you can afford to hire them? Go ahead. Give them an exploratory call. They'll help you understand why you can't afford not to hire them.
But if your career arc has taught you to be wary of stupid gurus, and you think culture is something best left to a petri dish, maybe you're qualified to give it a go on your own. Unfortunately, W. Edwards Deming has passed on. But if he were here, this would probably be his advice: Improve quality and you'll decrease cost while simultaneously improving productivity and market share.
So let's get back to work.
Update as of 10/28/09: GM and Chrysler have succumbed to the most virulent form of corporate welfare. The Car Czar and Pay Czar now determine who rules, and how much money they make. Chrysler is owned by Fiat - a brand once said to stand for "Fix it again, Tony." Nearly every legitimate stakeholder in both companies have been screwed with the exception of the UAW, who got a generous piece of the remaining pie even though they were as complicit as management in the companies' demise.
Hard to imagine that either of them will ever emerge as an independent, healthy business again. Still, we hope.
Ford hangs in by a thread, escaping Chapter 11 by presciently amassing additional capital before the financial markets fell apart. Unfortunately this now leaves them significantly disadvantaged since bankruptcy has eliminated a great deal of the the other two Auto's debt burden, (your welcome), allowed for streamlined dealerships, and made contract concessions from the UAW much easier to come by.
Word has it that the new Ford UAW contract, offering Ford's union workers terms comparable to what GM and Chrysler employees have, is going to be rejected by the rank and file. And why not? If they can drive Ford to bankruptcy, Obama's nationalized auto industry will give the UAW a nice piece of the Ford Motor Company to combine with their GM and Chrysler stake.
It's a sad day in No Motown.


text:
T he front pages of major American newspapers and the talking heads on the news channels would have you believe that the resignation of Jean-Bertrand Aristide from his presidency in Haiti was voluntary. Questions have been raised, however, about the manner in which his departure unfolded. In short, there is mounting evidence to suggest that Aristide was removed involuntarily from power by American forces.Randall Robinson, founder of TransAfrica and a close friend to Aristide, was interviewed on CNN by Wolf Blitzer on Monday afternoon about the events unfolding in Haiti. Robinson, who is one of the few people to actually speak with Aristide since yesterday, said, "We have undertaken a coup against a democratically elected government in Haiti." Congressman Charles Rangel, who also spoke to Aristide, said later on CNN, "He was kidnapped. He resigned under pressure. He and his wife had no idea where he was going. He was very apprehensive for his life." For the last several weeks, rebel forces have waged war against the government of Aristide. Hundreds of Haitians have been killed, many of whom were supporters of Aristide. As the rebel forces drew closer to the capital, the status of Aristide's leadership became more uncertain. An attempt to craft a power-sharing agreement between Aristide and the rebels failed when the rebels refused any terms that kept Aristide in office. The endgame began when Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had previously been espousing a hands-off policy regarding American intervention, told Aristide that the security being provided him by America would be removed. Such an action would have left Aristide completely exposed to the surging rebel forces. Among the leaders of the insurgency, according to several reports, are Louis-Jodel Chamblain, a former Haitian army officer sentenced to life in prison in connection with the 1993 assassination of political activist Antoine Izmérym. Also involved is Jean-Pierre Baptiste, who was sentenced to life in prison for his role in a 1994 massacre. Both were leaders of FRAPH, or Haitian Front for Advancement and Progress. FRAPH has been accused of being a CIA-backed organization that carried out terror operations against opponents of the military regime which ruled the country from 1991 to 1993. The story began to unfold on Sunday evening with a report from Agence France-Presse, which quoted the former caretaker of the Haitian president as saying, "The American army came to take him away at two in the morning. The Americans forced him out with weapons. It was American soldiers. They came with a helicopter and they took the security guards. (Aristide) was not happy. He did not want to be taken away. He did not want to leave. He was not able to fight against the Americans." Congresswoman Maxine Waters, interviewed on the radio show Democracy Now, had also spoken to Aristide and buttressed the comments made by Robinson and Rangel. "It's like in jail," said Waters of Aristide. "He said that he was kidnapped. He said that he was forced to leave Haiti. He said that the American embassy sent the diplomats. They ordered him to leave. They said you must go now. He said that they said that Guy Phillipe and U.S. Marines were coming to Port Au Prince. He will be killed, many Haitians will be killed, that they would not stop until they did what they wanted to do." Congresswoman Waters continued by saying, "They took them where they did stop in Antigua then they stopped at a military base, then they were in the air for hours and then they arrived at this place and they were met by five ministers of government. They are being held and they are surrounded by military people. They are not free to do whatever they want to do. We talked maybe fifteen minutes and then the phone clicked off. But he, some of it was muffled in the beginning, at times it was clear. But one thing that was very clear and he said it over and over again, that he was kidnapped, that the coup was completed by the Americans, that they forced him out. They had also disabled his American security force that he had around him for months now; they did not allow them to extend their numbers." "I heard it directly from him, I heard it directly from his wife," said Waters, "that they were kidnapped, they were forced to leave, they did not want to leave, their lives were threatened and the lives of many Haitians were threatened. He did not resign. He said he was forced out, that the coup was completed." A number of key questions remain unresolved at this point. If Aristide was indeed removed from power by American forces and spirited away from Haiti by force, how was he able to make telephone calls to Rangel, Robinson and Waters? If the Bush administration had an active hand in the removal of Aristide, what was their motivation? Was there a strategic or economic reason to remove Aristide that served the policy goals of the Bush administration? Or, faced with a degenerating situation on the ground, did the administration lunge for expediency and push for the removal of Aristide as a substitute for actual diplomacy? Whatever the answers, this much is clear. A democratic government has been overthrown. Allegations of active American involvement in the coup have been raised, and no answers have been provided. As with much of Haiti's violent history, a picture of these unfolding events has been obscured by blood and tears. William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of Truthout.org, where this article first appeared (www.truthout.org). He is a New York Times and international best-selling author of three books: War On Iraq, available from Context Books, The Greatest Sedition is Silence, available from Pluto Press, and Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism, available from Context Books. Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Bringing Hell to Haiti, Part 2 by David Edwards and Media Lens Other Recent Articles by William Rivers Pitt
Dennis Kucinich
and the Question
The Revolution Was Not Televised * Electronic Voting: What You Need To Know * The Most Insidious of Traitors * The Dubious Suicide of George Tenet |


text:
For all our obsession with the possibility of intelligent alien life, the search for E.T. has so far been a letdown. SETI, the organization famously scouring the heavens for alien life by scrutinizing radio signals for decades, has turned up nothing to speak of. What's a self-respecting alien-hunter to do?
Start scrutinizing exoplanets more closely, for starters — specifically their colors, say scientists in a new paper titled "Colors of Extreme Exo-Earth Environments."
(MORE: World's Oldest Wild Bird Stumps Scientists By Giving Birth at Age 62)
Let's talk lingo: An "exoplanet" is just the fancy scientist way of referring to planets found orbiting stars outside our solar system. We've identified slightly more than 850 so far, with upwards of 18,000 additional candidates awaiting verification. And that's just the start: NASA reports there may be hundreds of billions of exoplanets winging around our Milky Way galaxy alone.
Here's another funny-sounding term: extremophiles, the word we use for microorganisms that can exist in humans might consider extreme environmental conditions — say in hydrothermal vents at the bottom of Earth's oceans, or on the surface an exoplanet.
Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. are suggesting we start paying attention to these planets' spectrographic fingerprints, using that as a way to narrow our search for alien life. The Earth, for instance, generates light at the near-infrared end of the electromagnetic spectrum because of the chlorophyll in plants. Looking for planets that exhibit a comparable "red edge" could indicate the presence of alien plant life.
(VIDEO: Life in the Universe: Easy or Hard?)
And since we've already detected rocky planets orbiting in the habitable zones of their stars, the scientists studied extreme Earth-based environments that harbor extremophiles to identify the "characteristic albedos" we might use to find comparably durable exoplanet-based alien microorganisms.
Little gray aliens with almond eyes or long-necked ones with glowing fingers it's not, but at this point, just finding a bunch of alien microorganisms — to say nothing of something like an alien palm tree or rose bush — would be extraordinary enough.
MORE: How about Some Soda with Your Cereal? Mountain Dew Rolls Out Juice-Like Breakfast Drink


text:
What you need
1 8″ x 11 1/2″ Foam sheet
10 (or more)- 8″ x 11 1/2″ Scrapbook papers
1 8″ Craft wire (fun wire)
10 plastic beads
Hole punch
Using cutter, cut sheets of paper in four equal squares.
Cut foam sheet, making two squares the same size, just a little bigger then paper squares.
Put paper between foam and tap all together toward one end. Then use hole punch to put two holes in foam and paper, about 2″ apart.
Put wire throgh holes and add beads, then put wire through other hole and twist wire ends together.
Write on the front of your book, "Our family's Christmas memory book" (or whatever the event).


text:
All photos by Chevrolet
Cars Home / Stuff to Buy Channel / Bullz-Eye Home
General Motors has a long history of trying to build the "right" small car, but many of those nameplates that didn't make it for all sorts of reasons. Enter the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze with her stylish exterior , solid quality out of the gate and fuel economy that rivals the best from foreign and domestic manufacturers. All of a sudden, GM is back in the game. We drove a 2011 Chevrolet Cruze for a week for this review and, as always, we give it to you straight.
First impressions are extremely important with any new product and, although the 2011 Chevy Cruze isn't going to "wow" anyone, the Cruze shouldn't offend anyone either. Our model came in with an impressive looking Jet Black paint job that, when washed, looked fantastic. The Cruze Eco has some distinct exterior enhancements that are aimed at achieving the best fuel economy possible while adding to the Cruze's exterior appeal. After numerous hours in wind tunnel testing, GM designed "a lower front grille air shutter that closes at higher speeds to reduce aerodynamic drag and opens at lower speeds to optimize engine-cooling airflow. Another contributor to reduced drag is the use of ultra-low rolling resistance 17-inch Goodyear tires (used with lightweight wheels), which are also used on the Volt." The front end of the Chevy Cruze has more than a hint of the current Malibu, with aerodynamic front headlights , moving toward more traditional lighting and a spoiler on the rear of the vehicle. The beveled hood, sculpted fenders and muscular fenders give the Cruze a more refined look than many competitors in this segment.
It's clear that the engineers at GM spent a lot of time designing the dashboard on the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze as it was well placed and user friendly. The Cruze Eco we tested was equipped with a CD player, deluxe cloth seat trim, XM radio, 6-speaker audio system, cruise control, USB audio interface, leather-wrapped steering wheel, Bluetooth support, leather-trimmed shift lever and steering wheel controls. The cloth from the seats carries over to parts of the dashboard which dressed up the overall look, although the feature was received with mixed reviews from our team. The front seats were sturdy and comfortable with very good sight lines from most angles. We did, however, feel the back seats were restricting for good sized adults with legroom at a minimum. If GM could find a way to increase legroom in the rear seats, the Cruze would be even more attractive to drivers who are carting people around on a regular basis.
I wasn't sure what to expect from a model listed as an "Eco" when we're talking about performance. The Cruze Eco we drove had a 6-speed manual transmission with a 1.4-liter Ecotec VVT DOHC engine that provided 138 horsepower. Fuel economy was superb at 28 mpg city driving and an astonishing 42 mpg highway driving. The gearbox was sturdy and very smooth. Handling was very impressive for a sub-$20,000 vehicle. Chevy made over forty-two changes on the Eco version of the Cruze to lower the overall weight about 200 lbs, down to approximately 3009 lbs. The power from the 138-horspower engine is sufficient in daily use but there were times when we would have liked a little more kick.
The 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco was a long time coming from the General and I'm sure those employees in Lordstown, OH have to be proud of this car. Good enough just doesn't cut it anymore in the auto industry, especially in the compact and midsize segment. Our media loaner 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco had a sticker price of $19,615, which is very competitive. When you add 42 mpg on the highway it's no wonder that the 2011 Cruze is selling very well. The fit and finish of the Cruze is miles ahead of previous models from GM and comparable to the best in class which is a big accomplishment. Hopefully these are the signs of a new Chevrolet. At some point in the future, Bullz-Eye would like to see Chevy reconsider building a hatchback of the Cruze to grab every sale possible and dig deeper into this very important segment.
Click the thumbnails below to see full versions of each photo.
You can follow us on Twitter and Facebook for content updates. Also, sign up for our email list for weekly updates and check us out on Google+ as well.


text:
from Khavn's Toxic Mango
Censoring the Censors: Challenging the Powers of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board
by Francis Joseph Cruz
- Noam Chomsky
"Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas."
- A. Whitney Griswold
Television and cinema represent a mode of escapism for the Philippine nation. The darkened theaters where matinee idols and action heroes are projected to a dirty white curtain become melting pots for Filipinos of different social class, educational attainment, gender, and religion. The soap operas, news programs, and other shows turn into mechanisms that keep Filipino families together with their eager eyes glued on their television sets. It has been rumored that merely three days after the monumental martyrdom of National Hero Jose P. Rizal, Filipinos were rushing to discover the newly arrived cinematograph. The urban legend further enunciates the Filipinos infatuation with the visual medium.
A decade after the tragic execution of the nationalistic martyr, Filipinos are still enamored by the illusionary delights of the motion picture. With the advent of television, even the working class and the have-nots have taken a piece of the new free entertainment. However, such entertainment has been placed with safeguards to assure that such is not abused.
Since the creation of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) through Presidential Decree No. 1986 in 1985, the attitude towards governmental regulation of motion pictures and television has been changing with reference to the passing of different presidential administrations and board leaderships.
In 1994, the MTRCB under the leadership of Henrietta Mendez ordered three cuts on Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List[1] before allowing the exhibition of the film in the Philippines. The scenes that were supposed to be cut included what were described as "breast exposures" and "pumping scenes."[2]
In 2000, MTRCB chief Nicanor Tiongson approved Jose Javier Reyes' realist melodrama Live Show[3] to be shown in Philippine cinemas, church groups were outraged claiming that Reyes' film was pornographic and gratuitous. Due to pressure, Tiongson resigned and was replaced by a less liberal censors chief Alejandro Roces, who subsequently gave the film an X-rating. The censorship controversy hounded the newly established administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.[4]
Several other controversial MTRCB decisions have been made under the leadership of Marissa Laguardia. These include the stamping of the X-rating to a documentary about the life of former president Joseph Estrada[5], a short film about the Guimaras oil spill entitled Toxic Mango by independent filmmaker Khavn dela Cruz[6], and a television public affairs program episode about an indigenous tradition of giant wooden phalluses[7] and the burgeoning Rastafarian culture among Filipino youths[8].
With the board's seemingly dubious methods in reviewing television programs and films, there arises an issue of legitimacy to its broad powers. This paper seeks to address the Constitutional issues that haunt the existence of the MTRCB by following the history of film and television censorship, and how such has applied in the Philippine setting.
I. History of Film and Television Censorship
The birth of censorship probably coincided with the birth of civilization and government. Governments and religions have suppressed ideas that can be considered threatening or blasphemous. As human civilization progressed and social norms and proper decorum have been institutionalized within the communal unit, suppression has expanded to expressions and ideas relating to sex, violence, and other elements that might threaten social order.
A. United States vs One Book Entitled "Ulysses" (1933)
Several opposed the Hicklin doctrine. Judge Learned Hand, in the case of United States vs. Kennerley[17], wrote that American literary writers, readers, and publishers should not "reduce our treatment of sex to the standards of a child's library in the supposed interest of a salacious few."[18]
Random House attempted to release Ulysses in the United States but the United States Customs seized the books and filed a forfeiture application in federal court. Judge Woolsey was assigned the case, and ruled that the novel did not violate any federal obscenity laws. Woolsey abandoned the Hicklin doctrine, and stated that the proper test for obscenity is whether a literary work would lead to sexually impure and lustful thoughts to a normal adult[20], and not merely that of a child's, as suggested by Hicklin. The appellate court ruled for Ulysses, furthering the opinion that the Hicklin doctrine would suppress "much of the great works of literature."[21]
The Ulysses cases opened the doors of America to mature literature with an obscenity test that was not inexplicably restrictive to more modern narrative styles and presentations.
B. Burstyn vs Wilson (1952)
When The Great Train Robbery[22] was first screened in 1903, Americans were introduced to a novel way of storytelling, the cinematograph. Unlike written literature, the cinematograph merged reality with fiction by adding a visual and later on, an aural element to storytelling.
Nickelodeons where short films of mostly racy and bawdy materials were shows spread throughout America's cities and neighborhoods. Filmmakers also started to explore larger and more adventurous themes such as corruption, sexuality, politics, crime, and violence. American moralists tried to mediate the threat of the popular new form of entertainment by enacting several censorship laws in several communities.[23]
The first case regarding film censorship to reach the United States Supreme Court is Mutual Film Corporation vs. Industrial Commission of Ohio[24]. The Supreme Court decided that the exhibition of films is a business, conducted for profit like other spectacles. As such, censorship was justified since the medium has a potential appeal to prurient interests.[25]
The Mutual Film decision paved a way for stronger censorship in America. Several films were banned or cut, while others underwent several lawsuits. Hollywood, in an effort to save face while many studios are being prosecuted for releasing lewd films, formed the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA). The MPPDA, through its first chairman former Postmaster General Will Hays, created the Hays Code. The Hays Code is a list that disapproves on several sensitive portrayals such as profanity, violence, drugs, sexuality, and blasphemy.[26]
The problem with the Hays Code is that it merely controlled the conceptualization and production of American films. In the late 40's and early 50's, an onslaught of foreign pictures paved their way to American cinemas. One of these foreign films is Roberto Rossellini's The Miracle[27], which was released in America in 1948.
The Miracle was considered by American bishops as blasphemous because of its portrayal of a dimwitted peasant who was lured into sexual intercourse by a vagabond she mistook for St. Francis of Assisi. The film was accused of being insulting to the Christian faith and Italian womanhood.[28] New York's Board of Regents subsequently revoked the film's license. This prompted the film's distributor to launch a trial challenging the existence of movie licensing.
C. Freedman vs Maryland (1965)
The problem with the Burstyn ruling was that it left the question of whether a state can impose prior censorship under a statute that is made to "prevent the showing of obscene films."[30] Despite the Burstyn ruling, several censorship and licensing boards were still banning the releases and exhibitions of several foreign films, with vague standards for doing such.
With the dismantling of the Hays Code in the 1960's, Hollywood and other independent studios were freed from the constraints of filmmaking under a set of dos and don'ts.
In 1964, the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the decision of a Criminal Court in Baltimore convicting Ronald L. Freedman under the state censorship laws.[31] Freedman publicly exhibited a film without submitting such film to the State's censorship board.
Freedman raised the issue to the United States Supreme Court, which reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court stated that there are three safeguards against undue inhibition of protected expression that should be met by any licensing or censoring board:
(2) If the censoring body should find that a film is obscene, the body should go to the court to apply for an injunction to prevent the film from being exhibited publicly.
(3) The censorship law must have a provision stating that the court may review the decision of the censoring body, and that the court has the final say in the determination if such film should be prohibited.[32]
The Freedman ruling was followed by several other decisions that declared illegal the actions of several State censorship boards. In the case of Byrne vs. Karalexis[33], the United States Supreme Court overturned the anti-obscenity laws of Massachusetts when the state refused to allow the exhibition of Vilgot Sjoman's I Am Curious – Yellow[34] for the reason of the film having pornographic depictions of nudity and sex.
The Freedman ruling has not yet been overturned. Today, the motion picture, television, and radio industries have become self-regulation. The motion picture industry has the Motion Picture Association of America (MPPA), which rates all the films that seek exhibition in America.
II. History of the MTRCB
On September 29, 1977, President Ferdinand Marcos issued Letter of Instructions No. 13, which effectively amended the BCMP, making its censorship powers more restrictive, especially with regards to socio-politically themed films.[35]
To ease the tension created by artists who have banded together to form the Free The Artist Movement (FTA) and the Concerned Artists of the Philippines (CAP), Marcos created the Experimental Cinema of the Philippines (ECP). Moreover, Marcos removed the controversial and restrictive provisions of Executive Order No. 868 through the enactment of Executive Order No. 876 and 876-A.
When the BRMPT refused to allow the exhibition of the Lino Brocka film Bayan Ko: Kapit Sa Patalim[36] in 1984, the producers of the film went to the Supreme Court to assert its rights. In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled to deny the petition of the producers of the film, based solely on "the ground that there are not enough votes for a ruling that there was a grave abuse of discretion in the classification of Bayan Ko: Kapit sa Patalim as "For-Adults-Only.""[37] Moreover, the BRMPT already has revoked its questioned resolution, and has already given the producer of the film a license to exhibit Bayan Ko: Kapit sa Patalim.
The meat of Gonzalez vs Katigbak is not the disallowance of Kapit sa Patalim to be exhibited in public but the fact that the Court, to a certain extent, diminished the power of the BRMPT when it stated that "the power of respondent Board is limited to the classification of films.... Freedom of expression is the rule and restrictions the exemption. The power to exercise prior restraint is not to be presumed; rather the presumption is against its validity."[38] The Court continued to state that "Censorship, especially so if an entire production is banned, is allowable only under the clearest proof of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest."[39]
Probably reacting from the decision of the court in Gonzalez vs. Katigbak which lessened the powers of the BRMPT, Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1986 on October 5, 1985. P. D. 1986 abolished the BRMPT and replaced it with the Movie and Television Regulation and Classification Board (MTRCB). The MTRCB's charter remains unchanged since its creation in 1985.
III. Constitutional Challenges to the MTRCB
According to the preamble of P. D. 1986, the MTRCB was created with the need to infuse "innovative and fresh ideas toward the improvement and development of the film and television industry," and to "improve, upgrade and make viable the industry as one source of fueling the national economy," it says nothing about "setting standards for cultural refinement in movies and television," nor does it give the board the responsibility "to keep society's moral balance."[40]
With such vision in mind, the MTRCB was granted eleven powers and functions where they may base their rules and regulations. These are:
(1) To promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary or proper for the implementation of this act, and the accomplishments of its purposes and objectives, including guidelines and standards for production, advertising and titles;
(2) To screen, review and examine all motion pictures, television programs; including publicity materials such as advertisements, trailers and stills, both for theatrical and non-theatrical distribution, for television broadcast or for viewing, imported or produced in the Philippines, whether for local or export;
(3) To approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions from and/or prohibit the importation, exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition and/or television broadcast of the motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials which in the judgment of the Board based on contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard, are objectionable such as:
a) those which tend to incite subversion, insurrection, rebellion or sedition against the State, or otherwise threaten the economic and/or political stability of the State;
b) those which tend to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government and/or duly constituted authorities;
c) those which glorify criminals or condone crimes;
d) those which serve no other purpose but satisfy the market for violence or pornography;
e) those which tend to abet the traffic in and use of prohibited drugs;
f) those which are libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person, whether living or dead; and
g) those which may constitute contempt of court or of any quasi-judicial tribunal, or pertain to matters which are subjudice in nature.
(4) To supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel permits for the importation, exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale, lease exhibition, and/or television programs and publicity materials, to the end that no such pictures, programs and materials are determined by the Board to be objectionable shall be imported, exported, produced, copied, reproduced, distributed, sold, leased, exhibit and/or broadcast by television;
(5) To classify motion pictures, television programs and similar shows into categories such as "G" or "For General Patronage" (all ages admitted) "P" for Parental Guidance Suggested, or "R" or "Restricted" (for adults only) "X" or "Nor for Public Viewing," or such other categories as the Board may determine for the public interest;
(6) To close the moviehouses and other similar establishments engaged in the public exhibition of motion pictures and television programs which violate the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Board;
(7) To levy, assess and collect, and periodically adjust and revise the rates of fees and charges for the work of review and examination and for the issuance of the licenses and permits which the Board is authorized to grant in the exercise of its power and functions and in the performance of its duties and responsibilities;
(8) To deputize representatives from the government and from the various associations in the movie industry, whose main duties shall be to help ensure compliance with all laws relative to the importation, exportation, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition and/or television broadcast of motion pictures, television programs, advertisements and publicity materials.
For this purpose, the Board may constitute such Regulatory Council or Councils composed of representatives from the government and the movie and television industry as may be appropriate to implement the purposes and objectives of this Act. The Board may also call on any law enforcement of its decisions, orders or awards;
(9) To cause the prosecution on behalf of the People of the Philippines, of violators of this Act, or anti-trust, obscenity, censorship and other laws pertinent to the movie and television industry;
(10) To prescribe the internal and operational procedures for the exercise of its powers and functions as well as the performance of its duties and responsibilities, including the creation and vesting of authority upon sub-committee of the Board for the work or review and other related matters; and;
(11) To exercise such other powers and functions as may be necessary or incidental to the attainment of the purposes and objectives of this Act, and to perform such other related duties and responsibilities as may be directed by the President of the Philippines.[41]
It is quite clear that despite the board's title saying that it is a "regulatory and classification board," it still has functions that are censorial in nature. The Board has the authority to "approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions from and/or prohibit" the exhibition of a film. Moreover, the Board also has the statutory authority to ban the exhibition of a film deemed to be unfit for public viewing.[42]
More interesting are the standards that the MTRCB utilizes as guidance in its classification and regulation duties. The "dangerous tendency" is the test used by the MTRCB, despite the Court ruling in Gonzalez vs. Katigbak wherein the "clear and present danger" test was the one prescribed by the Court in the determination of the permissibility of censorship.
In the words of Chief Justice Fernando in Gonzalez vs. Katigbak, "The test, to repeat, to determine whether freedom of excession may be limited is the clear and present danger of an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent. Such danger must not only be clear but also present. There should be no doubt that what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of. The causal connection must be evident. Also, there must be reasonable apprehension about its imminence. The time element cannot be ignored. Nor does it suffice if such danger were only probable. There is the require of its being well-nigh inevitable. The basic postulate, wherefore, as noted earlier, is that where the movies, theatrical productions radio scripts, television programs, and other such media of expression are concerned — included as they are in freedom of expression — censorship, especially so if an entire production is banned, is allowable only under the clearest proof of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public morals, public health or any other legitimate public interest."[43]
According to Atty. Victor Avecilla, the only reason why the MTRCB charter has not yet been abolished is because of the fact that it hasn't been repealed by Congress, or has been declared unconstitutional by our courts. He furthers his contention that P. D. 1986 is patently unconstitutional because it does not pass the three safeguards laid down by the landmark case of Freedman vs. Maryland.[44]
He also contends that the presidential decree suffers from being void for vagueness. In the enumerated grounds that the MTRCB charter lists, a curious proviso "such as but not limited to" appears, giving an indication that the list may actually grow, depending on the needs of the State or the administration.[45]
Lastly, Avecilla contends that the standard procedure the MTRCB follows is violative of administrative due process. According to Avecilla, "Administrative due process requires that the standards for the exercise of power must be clearly defined. For example, when a film is judged bythe board as obscene, we must know what constitutes obscenity. The standard for obscenity must be defined."[46]
In fact, the rules for determining whether a program or film is obscene is continually modified depending on the personalities of those who head the Board. The MTRCB under the guidance of Manoling Morato was seen as ultra-conservative.[47] The Mendez Board, like Morato's was perceived as ultra-conservative, but opened the Appeals Board for filmmakers and program directors.[48] The Board under Jesus Sison has three objectives, which are: "to encourage the production of more films that depict the innate heroism of the Filipino;" secondly, "to search for ways to install a self regulatory framework for the film industry, where the MTRCB and industry leaders will call upon their colleagues to exercise responsibility in movie making...;" and lastly, "to confer a 'developmental dimension' to the work of the MTRCB so that it will go beyond wielding the censor's scissors and do the spadework image in the public eye..."[49]
IV. Jurisprudential Challenges to the MTRCB
Since the creation of the MTRCB in 1985, there have only been three challenges to its broad powers that have reached the Supreme Court. Interestingly, despite the positive developments that were brought about by the decision in Gonzalez vs Katigbak, it seems that the development in censoring and regulation in the Philippines is backward moving. Probably due to the fact that the Philippine movie industry has been in a decline the past decade, no movie producer has gone up to the Supreme Court to question a dubious ruling my the MTRCB.
The three cases that sought to question the powers of the MTRCB all involve programs aired in the television. Iglesia ni Cristo (Inc.) vs. Court of Appeals[50] bolstered its appeal to the Supreme Court by arguing that its television program is exempted from the jurisdiction of the MTRCB because of the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution. MTRCB vs ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp, et. al.[51] similarly seeks exemption from the broad powers of the MTRCB utilizing the freedom of the press clause that is enshrined in our Constitution. Lastly, GMA Network, Inc. vs. MTRCB[52] sought to clarify the powers granted to the MTRCB and the exemptions to these powers.
A. Iglesia ni Cristo (Inc.) vs. Court of Appeals (1996)
1. Facts of the Case
Following the procedure of appeals in P. D. 1986, Iglesia ni Cristo (Inc.) appealed to the Office of the President, and filed a civil case against the MTRCB with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC-QC). The petitioner succeeded in its appeal with the Office of the President. The RTC-QC ordered the MTRCB to grant Iglesia ni Cristo (Inc.) the necessary permits to carry on its broadcast, but also ordered the petitioner to refrain from attacking or criticizing other religions on its program. Upon a motion for reconsideration filed by Iglesia ni Cristo (Inc.), the RTC-QC reversed the second part of the dispositive portion of its ruling.
On March 5, 1995, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC-QC. This urged Iglesia ni Cristo (Inc.) to bring the matter to the Supreme Court, forwarding the issues of (1) whether or not the MTRCB has the power to review the program of Iglesia ni Cristo (Inc.) despite freedom of religion clause; and (2) that if the MTRCB indeed has the power to review religious programs, may it prevent the airing of the questionable episodes for the reason that they constitute an attack against other religions.
2. Ruling of the Court
The Supreme Court answered the first issue in the positive, and the second issue in the negative.
In resolving the second issue, the Court stated that "Deeply ensconced in our fundamental law is its hostility against all prior restraints on speech, including religious speech."[54] The Court said that the so-called attacks were actually mere criticisms based on the pieces of evidence submitted by the petitioner. Moreover, "attacks against another religion" is not one of the situations conceived by P. D. 1986. Such was only added in the Board rules[55], which the court voided for being against the administrative doctrine that rules and regulations cannot expand the letter and spirit of the law they seek to enforce.
The meat of the case is its reiteration of the "clear and present danger" test. The Court cited the case of Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope Workers Union[56] stating that "only where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be justified, and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger."
Despite the Court's acknowledgment of the need to institute the "clear and present danger" in censoring works, it prevented the reasoning in the Freedman vs Maryland case to take precedent in the Philippines. The Court stated that "we are not ready to hold that it is unconstitutional for Congress to grant an administrative body quasi-judicial power to preview and classify TV programs and enforce its decision subject to review by our courts."[57] To bolster such argument, it cited the 1921 case of Sotto vs. Ruiz[58], not keeping in mind that technology and social norms have evolved since its promulgation.
Justice Kapunan in his separate and dissenting opinion said that Sotto cannot be invoked since such was ruled with Section 1954 of the old Administrative Code. Kapunan said that "freedom of worship is such a precious commodity in our hierarchy of civil liberties that it cannot be derogated peremptorily by an administrative body or officer who determines, without judicial safeguards, whether or not to allow the exercise of such freedom." He capped his argument with the statement that "the rights of free expression and free exercise of religion occupy a unique and special place in our constellation of civil rights. The primacy our society accords these freedoms determines the mode it chooses to regulate their expression. But the idea that an ordinary statute or decree could, by its effects, nullify both the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression puts an ominous gloss on these liberties. Censorship law as a means of regulation and as a form of prior restraint is anathema to a society which places high significance to these values."[59]
In Justice Mendoza's separate opinion, he declares Section 3 (c) of P. D. 1986[60] unconstitutional. Using the case of Gonzalez vs Katigbak, Justice Mendoza states that "the standard for judging the validity of prior restraint on political expression is stricter than that for adjudging restraints on materials alleged to be obscene, but not that the test of clear and present danger is applicable in determining whether or not a permit may be granted." Moreover, he suggests that "We have long ago done away with controls on print media, it is time we did the same with the control on broadcast media, which for so long has operated under restraints, leaving the punishment for violations of laws to be dealt with by subsequent prosecution."[61]
Iglesia ni Cristo (Inc.) vs. Court of Appeals shows a forward-thinking judiciary that is willing to overturn decisions of the MTRCB that may be deemed unduly restrictive under the "clear and present danger test," as opposed to the "dangerous tendency" test promulgated by P. D. 1986. While it is not ready to do away with the Board by not recognizing the far-reaching effects of Freedman vs. Maryland, the Court was able to resurface the landmark case of Gonzalez vs. Katigbak in the determination of propriety of prior censorship.
B. MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. (2005)
1. Facts of the Case
On October 15, 1991 at 10:45pm, ABS-CBN aired Prosti-tuition during its programs The Inside Story that is hosted and produced by co-petitioner Loren Legarda. The episode was about students of Philippine Women's University (PWU) who worked as prostitutes and pimps to earn money for their tuition fees. The administration of PWU filed a complaint with the MTRCB alleging that the episode besmirched the name of the institution and its students. The MTRCB initiated a formal complaint with its Investigation Committee, finding that ABS-CBN did not submit a tape prior to exhibition, and that it exhibited the episode without its permission, which violated Section 7 of P. D. 1986 and Section 3, Chapter III[62] and Section 7, Chapter IV[63] of the MTRCB Rules and Regulations.
ABS-CBN argued that it was exempt from the jurisdiction of the MTRCB since Inside Story is a public affairs program, and that it's airing is protected by the constitutional provision on freedom of expression and of the press. Despite the argument, the MTRCB ruled against petitioners, fining the corporation and ordering it to submit all tapes of the episodes of the program before airing them. ABS-CBN appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC-QC), which overturned the ruling of the MTRCB.
The MTRCB raised the case to the Supreme Court forwarding the issue of whether or not MTRCB has the power and authority to review the public affairs program prior to its broadcast.
2. Ruling of the Court
The Court differentiated the freedom of religion and freedom of the press. It ruled that freedom of religion has been granted preferred status, while freedom of the press has not been granted preferred status. If in Iglesia ni Cristo (Inc.), such was not granted an exception based on a freedom of preferred status, what more in this case wherein the exception is based on a freedom bearing no preferred status. In Court's own words, "If this Court, in Iglesia ni Cristo, did not exempt religious programs from the jurisdiction and review power of petitioner MTRCB, with more reason, there is no justification to exempt therefrom "The Inside Story" which, according to respondents, is protected by the constitutional provision on freedom of expression and of the press, a freedom bearing no preferred status."[64]
The Court also clarified the meaning of newsreels, which are exempted from prior review of the MTRCB. According to the Court, "newsreels are straight presentation of events. They are depiction of "actualities." Correspondingly, the MTRCB Rules and Regulations implementing P. D. No. 1986 define newsreels as "straight news reporting, as distinguished from news analyses, commentaries and opinions. Talk shows on a given issue are not considered newsreels."[36] Clearly, the "The Inside Story" cannot be considered a newsreel. It is more of a public affairs program which is described as a variety of news treatment; a cross between pure television news and news-related commentaries, analysis and/or exchange of opinions. Certainly, such kind of program is within petitioner's review power."[65]
The ruling in MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN Corp. merely reiterated the ruling in Iglesia ni Cristo (Inc.) vs. Court of Appeals. Apart from the clarifications of definitions and the extent of the reviewing powers of the Board, the case did not touch on important issues regarding censorship and other Constitutional issues.
3. GMA Broadcasting Corp. vs MTRCB (2007)
The program in question in GMA Broadcasting Corp. vs. MTRCB[66] is Muro-Ami: The Making which the network broadcasted without first securing a permit from the MTRCB. The petitioners claimed that the program was a public affairs program, which was exempted from the MTRCB by virtue of the freedom of the press.
In resolving the case, the Supreme Court merely reiterated its ruling in MTRCB vs ABS-CBN Corp., stating that public affairs programs are not part of the list of those exempted from the prior review powers of the MTRCB.
V. Conclusion
As can be noted from the little jurisprudence regarding the powers of the MTRCB, there seems to be a discomforting acceptance to the Board's overreaching powers that subtly threaten our Constitutionally guarded rights.
"No law shall be passed abridging freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press."[67]
The 1986 EDSA Revolution successfully brought back democracy when it deposed Ferdinand Marcos. Carried over from the previous Constitution is Section 4 of the Bill of Rights, which artists and filmmakers were banking on to be ideally tested in a dictatorship-free nation. However, among those carried over from the Marcos administration is P. D. 1986, a dated and strict law that does not seem to fit within the promise of a free nation.
There are plenty of possible alternatives to the MTRCB. First, P. D. 1986 should be repealed causing the abolition of the MTRCB. However, without any regulatory body guiding the citizenry, the effect might be chaos and a proliferation of immoral and gratuitous entertainment.[68]
Second, the MTRCB charter should be amended stripping away its censorship and cutting powers. This alternative acknowledges the need for a regulatory body that will supervise the showing of movies according to audience sensibility without sacrificing artistic integrity and creativity.[69]
Third, turn MTRCB into solely a classification body. Furthermore, there should be an implementation of X-rated cinemas wherein X-rated features can be viewed.[70] This suggestion would release the MTRCB from its quasi-censorial duties of labeling a film X-rated, and subsequently banning it from being exhibited in the Philippines. The classification duties of the MTRCB shall serve as a mere guiding force to the citizenry, instead of an ultra-moralist dictator that feed the nation what it can and cannot view in the cinemas and their television sets at home.
According to Jose Lacaba[71], the best alternative is self-regulation. There is no such thing as censorship in print media because these media outfits regulate their own. There is no governmental agency that regulates these businesses.
Actually, P. D. 1986 was created as a prelude for self-regulation. P. D. 1986 provides that at least fifteen members of the Board come from the movie and television community, and that all of its members shall have "expertise in the various areas of motion pictures and television."[72]
However, it has been more than two decades since the promulgation of P. D. 1986 and the MTRCB is still a bane to filmmakers and artists around the Philippines. Moreover, the MTRCB, with its highly malleable conceptions, is being used by the powerful to mute the marginalized. I believe it's about time that a change is initiated.
The words of Noam Chomsky in the beginning of the article enunciate the inevitability of change in a social system that thrives in the constraints of mysterious and questionable social laws. Chomsky suggests that if these social laws do not meet the test, they should be replaced with better ones. Two decades after the creation of the MTRCB, the movie industry is in obvious shambles (against the objectives for which the MTRCB was made) and the administrative body has become a tool for harassment and restriction of free expression. Chomsky's words ring truest at this time.
Finally, Griswold compliments the perpetual nature of human ideas --- that inspire of being restricted, burned, and banned, these ideas will continue to blossom as it is only human for any person to search for something beyond himself and what the State allows him to view. In other words, the law should not be a blockade to this curiosity but merely serve as a guiding light in our continuing search for the right.
[1] See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/.
[2] Chicago Sun-Times (March 3, 1994).
[3] See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0275735/.
[4] Tim McGirk, The President's Scissor, Time (April, 2001).
[5] Rod. P. Kapunan, More Malice Than Legality, The Daily Tribune (September 5, 2006).
[6] Armida Siguion-Reyna, Political Censorship, Part 2, The Daily Tribune (October 14, 2006).
[7] Bayani San Diego, Jr., Censors Suspend I-Witness, Philippine Daily Inquirer (July 1, 2006).
[8] Bayani San Diego, Jr., Movie-TV Board Chides ABS-CBN's Correspondents, Philippine Daily Inquirer (July 17, 2006).
[9] Marjorie Heins, Culture on Trial: Censorship Trials and Free Expression, 2 Insight on Law and Society (2002).
[10] 5 F.Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1933).
[11] 278 A.D. 253 (N.Y. S.Ct. 3rd Dept.), affirmed, 303 N.Y. 242 (1951).
[14] 3 Queens Bench 360 (1868).
[15] Id., 362.
[16] See United States vs. Bennett, 24 F. Cas. 1093.
[17] 209 Fed. Rep. 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1913).
[18] Id., 121.
[19] Paul Vanderham, James Joyce and Censorship: The Trials of Ulysses (NYU Press, 1998), 32-34.
[20] United States vs. One Book Entitled Ulysses, 5 F.Supp. 182,183-85 (S.D.N.Y. 1933).
[21]United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce, 72 F.2d 705, 706-07 (2nd Cir. 1934).
[22] See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0000439/.
[23] Gregory Black, Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U. Press, 1994).
[25] Id., 242-244.
[26] Stephen Vaughn, Morality and Entertainment: The Origins of the Motion Picture Code, 77 Journal of American History, 44 (June 1990).
[27] See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040092/.
[28] Spellman Urges 'Miracle' Boycott, New York Times, Jan. 8, 1951.
[29] Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 504-05 (1952).
[30] Id.
[31]Freedman vs State of Maryland, 233 Md. 498 (1964).
[32] Freedman vs State of Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965).
[34] See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061834/.
[35] Jose F. Lacaba, Notes on Film Censorship in the Philippines, Philippine Post Magazine at http://www.philpost.com/0100pages/film0100.html.
[36] See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086943/.
[37] Gonzalez vs. Katigbak, G.R. No. L-69500, July 22, 1985.
[38] Id.
[39] Id.
[40] Lacaba, supra note 35 citing P. D. 1986.
[43] Supra note 37.
[44] Victor Avecilla, Time to Abolish the MTRCB, available at http://fiftypesoninja.blogspot.com/2006/10/mtrcb-is-suxxorz.html.
[45] Id.
[46] Id.
[47] Constantino Tejero, Censorship in Philippine Movies and Television: Anathema, Sunday Inquirer Magazine Vol 5, 37-40 (1990).
[48] Ricky Torre, Censoring the Censors, Philippine Free Press Vol 85, 32-33 (1994).
[49] Ma. Eloisa Lazaro, Jesus Sison: Redirecting Censorship, Philippine Graphic Vol 7, 23 (1996).
[50] G. R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996.
[51] G. R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005.
[52] G. R. No. 148579, February 5, 2007.
[53] Isagani Cruz, Constitutional Law, 1991 ed., 176-178 states that:
(1) Freedom to Believe
The individual is free to believe (or disbelieve) as he pleases concerning the hereafter. He may indulge his own theories about life and death; worship any god he chooses, or none at all; embrace or reject any religion; acknowledge the divinity of God or of any being that appeals to his reverence; recognize or deny the immortality of his soul — in fact, cherish any religious conviction as he and he alone sees fit. However absurd his beliefs may be to others, even if they be hostile and heretical to the majority, he has full freedom to believe as he pleases. He may not be required to prove his beliefs. He may not be punished for his inability to do so. Religion, after all, is a matter of faith. 'Men may believe what they cannot prove.' Every one has a right to his beliefs and he may not be called to account because he cannot prove what he believes.
(2) Freedom to Act on One's Beliefs
But where the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions that affect the public, his freedom to do so becomes subject to the authority of the State. As great as this liberty may be, religious freedom, like all the other rights guaranteed in the Constitution, can be enjoyed only with a proper regard for the rights of others. It is error to think that the mere invocation of religious freedom will stalemate the State and render it impotent in protecting the general welfare. The inherent police power can be exercised to prevent religious practices inimical to society. And this is true even if such practices are pursued out of sincere religious conviction and not merely for the purpose of evading the reasonable requirements or prohibitions of the law.
[54] Iglesia ni Cristo (Inc.) vs. Court Appeals, G. R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996.
[56] L-25246, September 12, 1974.
[57] Supra note 49.
[58] 41 Phil. 468 (1921)
[59] Supra note 49, Kapunan dissenting and separate opinion.
[60] c) To approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions from and/or prohibit the importation, exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition and/or television broadcast of the motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials subject of the preceding paragraph, which, in the judgment of the board applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard, are objectionable for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines or its people, or with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of violence or of wrong or crime, such as but not limited to:
i) Those which tend to incite subversion, insurrection, rebellion or sedition against the State, or otherwise threaten the economic and/or political stability of the State;
ii) Those which tend to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government and/or the duly constituted authorities;
iii) Those which glorify criminals or condone crimes;
iv) Those which serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence or pornography;
v) Those which tend to abet the traffic in and use of prohibited drugs;
vi) Those which are libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person, whether living or dead; and
vii) Those which may constitute contempt of court or of any quasi-judicial tribunal, or pertain to matter which are sub-judice in nature.
Provided, however, That deletions or cuts must not be made on the master negative of the films, and that such master negative shall be deposited with the Film Archives of the Philippines and shall be released for export purposes to the film owner only upon showing of the proper export permit; Provided, finally, That the film owner shall execute his own undertaking that such master negative shall be exclusively used for export purposes and not for local showing;
To supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or cancel, permits for the importation, exportation, production, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition, and/or television broadcast of all motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials, to the end that no such pictures, programs and materials as are determined by the BOARD to be objectionable in accordance with paragraph (c) hereof shall be imported, exported, produced, copied, reproduced, distributed, sold, leased, exhibited and/or broadcast by television;
[61] Supra note 49, Mendoza separate opinion.
[62] "SECTION 3. Matters subject to review – All motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials, as defined in Chapter 1 hereof, whether these be for theatrical or non-theatrical distribution, for television broadcast or general viewing, imported or produced in the Philippines, and in the latter case, whether they be for local viewing or for export, shall be subject to review by the BOARD before they are exported, imported, copied, distributed, sold, leased, exhibited or broadcast by television;"
[63] "SECTION 7. REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR REVIEW – No motion picture, television program or related publicity material shall be imported, exported, produced, copied, distributed, sold, leased, exhibited or broadcast by television without prior permit issued by the BOARD after review of the motion picture, television program or publicity material."
[64] MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN Corp., et. al., G. R. No. 155282, January 17, 2005.
[65] Id.
[66] G. R. No. 148579, February 5, 2007.
[67] Const. art. III, sec. 4.
[68] Christian Bryan Bustamante, Why Self-regulation?:A Policy Analysis on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (1998), available at http://www.geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/mtrcb_self_regulation.htm.
[69] Id.
[70] Id.
[71] Jose P. Lacaba, Censorship vs. Classification, National Midweek Vol. 2, 26.
[72] P. D. 1986 Sec. 2.